Sanders is the problem

[volbrian]

Good point mikey.

While you are at it, could you get them to explain to us just how Fulmer stole the job away from Majors? Ive been asking and, like you, just havent got an answer.

 

[mikey]

I'd really rather notget into that other than to say 2 things:
1. It's ancient history...let it go.
2. Anyone who thinks we'd be better if Coach Majors was still at the helm needs to get his head examined. He was very difficult to work for and therefore had huge turn over in his staff. One of, if not the most important things that plays into a staff and program is continuity. No one does continuity and loyalty better than Phillip. The man has won over 80% of his games. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?! Move on with your lives. Coach Majors has.

 

[volbrian]

Originally posted by mikey@Sep 4, 2005 9:58 PM
Coach Majors has.

[snapback]136604[/snapback]​

I was with you until that comment. JM is still bitter at UT, DD, PF and anybody else he feels, "stabbed him in the back".

 

[mikey]

I didn't say he wasn't bitter. I said he's moved on. I don't think he talks about it everyday and he has gotten past it enough to come back to the campus now.

 

[hmanvolfan]

I hope we're not gonna get two weeks worth of "fire Randy Sanders" bs with the off week comin' up. We should have plenty of time to correct mistakes made against UAB on offense and get solid on the qb controversy. IMO the biggest adjustments and corrections should be in the defensive backfield. There were way too many receivers running wide open back there. It'll be all good if the defense can tighten up a few screws. Got to hell Gators!!!!

 

[volbrian]

Actually, I hoping we get after the QB a little better. Granted, Hackney had a quick release. But we could have made it easier on our secondary by making QBS throw with 3 or 4 Vols in his face.

 

[hmanvolfan]

Originally posted by volbrian@Sep 4, 2005 10:16 PM
Actually, I hoping we get after the QB a little better.  Granted, Hackney had a quick release.  But we could have made it easier on our secondary by making QBS throw with 3 or 4 Vols in his face.

[snapback]136619[/snapback]​

I agree %100 with that. With all the displaced talk about "not playing all the cards" with Florida coming up, it will be imperative to ratchet up the blitz package against Leak as I believe he can be rattled under pressure..

 

[#10_Ainge_#10]

Originally posted by hmanvolfan@Sep 4, 2005 10:42 PM
I agree %100 with that. With all the displaced talk about "not playing all the cards" with Florida coming up, it will be imperative to ratchet up the blitz package against Leak as I believe he can be rattled under pressure..

[snapback]136641[/snapback]​

He can....If you rush him he's terrible....He proved that last year

 

[T_man_J]

I do not think that play calling was the issue Saturday because poor execution at the start of the game did influence the kind of plays that Randy felt comfortable calling. Execution of the play is very important! There are many factors involved in successfully executing a play; some are unmanageable from a coach's perspective (like natural ability), but some factors are manageable. No one can deny the fact that we are always loaded with talent, so the real problem has to fall within the realm of control (from the coach’s perspective).

What factors are left that can be influenced by our coaches? There are many, many factors that fall into this area, but with this post I will discuss one very important factor: Preparation.

Our approach to Preparation is intuitionally flawed. This is not any one coach’s fault; it is just the way we have always done it. We recruit kids that have played one position in high school for, sometimes, three years, and what do we do when they get on campus? We move them to a different position! I understand that this usually happens on defense and the offensive line, but still we should try to respect what the high coaches have accomplished with these kids.

We try to do too much in too little time; this impacts Preparation. We have had the same tired old play book forever (you would have to perform carbon dating to know the exact age). There is no need to try to teach the entire play book to each player, we need better execution on fewer plays! IMHO, if we could flawlessly execute four offensive plays, we could beat anybody.

You can win many games with talent alone because the kids will find a way to prevail. To win the big games you must have the complete package.

 

[rwemyss]

The offense moved the ball... if you guys just look at the numbers, over 400 yards and only ONE punt. They just didn't execute well enough to finish drives. We'll see a completely different team in 2 weeks. This is standard CPF coaching, sometimes it has bit him in the butt (about 20% of the time...) but the other 80% he's shown that he knows what he's doing. Let the men coach and the boys play. We're fans, not football geniuses.

 

[airforcevol]

CPF is one of the best recruiters in the country; therefore he gets a pass on a lot of stuff. I also believe that he is a true leader which leads to Sanders being able to run the offense pretty much on his own, which is a mistake. CPF needs to stop being so loyal to Sanders and take over the game if need be. Now let me pose a question to everyone. If Sanders is such a good coach why has no other schools tried to steal him away? I mean after all he is the offensive cord. for one of the top rated teams year in and year out, one would think that a school would notice his obvious talents and hire him as a head coach. Never going happen because with out CPF Sanders is nothing. FIRE SANDERS and give Trooper a chance!

 

[volbrian]

Originally posted by rwemyss@Sep 5, 2005 10:05 AM
The offense moved the ball... if you guys just look at the numbers, over 400 yards and only ONE punt.  They just didn't execute well enough to finish drives.  We'll see a completely different team in 2 weeks.  This is standard CPF coaching, sometimes it has bit him in the butt (about 20% of the time...) but the other 80% he's shown that he knows what he's doing.  Let the men coach and the boys play.  We're fans, not football geniuses.

[snapback]136925[/snapback]​

No need for a punter when your QBS throw 3 INTs.

 

[TNFanBornandRaised]

disregard the overthrows, etc., look squarely on the playcalling its miserable anyone that says otherwise obviously doesnt watch anyone but UT play football.....We have ONE of the most talented rosters in football and we underacheive on offense.....Nearly any coordinator but sanders would help us.....imagine if Cutcliffe came back.....you mean to tell me you cant see a difference from when he was here to now with Sanders? of course you can.....in fact our numbers slid every year until last year.........sanders calls those screen passes that I know are coming when the play starts...we have NO creativity on offense whatsoever.......face it, Sanders has no business being a coordinator in college

 

[donsargegolf]

Originally posted by milohimself@Sep 4, 2005 8:18 PM
I know... Fulmer is still a great coach, and an .800 over a decade doesn't just happen. But I would expect more than 2 conference championships in that time period. I suspect the answer is that Spurrier had our number, but I'm not too sure.

[snapback]136501[/snapback]​

Amen Milo. We win BUT, under achieve!!

 

[OldVol]

Folks, in the first 6 minutes we came out and put up 10 points. We looked for all the world like the team that had been hyped prior to the game.

Then, our players pretty much quit.

Shucks, the game was over, so why exert yourself any more.

Lets face it. Our team just quit.

We are one of the worst teams in the nation at sitting on a lead and a lot of that has to do with coaching.

And we weren't opening up the field, stretching it if you will, in those first 6 minutes, but they were short passes and nice runs by Riggs.

Then we quit.

 

[donsargegolf]

Originally posted by OldVol@Sep 5, 2005 1:02 PM
Folks, in the first 6 minutes we came out and put up 10 points. We looked for all the world like the team that had been hyped prior to the game.

Then, our players pretty much quit.

Shucks, the game was over, so why exert yourself any more.

Lets face it. Our team just quit.

We are one of the worst teams in the nation at sitting on a lead and a lot of that has to do with coaching.

And we weren't opening up the field, stretching it if you will, in those first 6 minutes, but they were short passes and nice runs by Riggs.

Then we quit.

[snapback]137049[/snapback]​

Yep, great analysis. Some things just never change.

 

[Vol67]

Originally posted by TNFanBornandRaised@Sep 5, 2005 1:15 PM
disregard the overthrows, etc., look squarely on the playcalling its miserable anyone that says otherwise obviously doesnt watch anyone but UT play football.....We have ONE of the most talented rosters in football and we underacheive on offense.....Nearly any coordinator but sanders would help us.....imagine if Cutcliffe came back.....you mean to tell me you cant see a difference from when he was here to now with Sanders? of course you can.....in fact our numbers slid every year until last year.........sanders calls those screen passes that I know are coming when the play starts...we have NO creativity on offense whatsoever.......face it, Sanders has no business being a coordinator in college

[snapback]137026[/snapback]​

Saturday had nothing to do with playcalling NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you people too slow minded to understand that!

1 dropped ball caused a FG instead of TD, 1 hot potato ball caused a 14 point turn around, 1 missed block prevented a TD. Shall I go on?

Now the score is 35-3 and this is all a mute point

It's called a lack of execution by the team on the field

 

[Vol67]

Originally posted by OldVol@Sep 5, 2005 2:02 PM
Folks, in the first 6 minutes we came out and put up 10 points. We looked for all the world like the team that had been hyped prior to the game.

Then, our players pretty much quit.

Shucks, the game was over, so why exert yourself any more.

Lets face it. Our team just quit.

We are one of the worst teams in the nation at sitting on a lead and a lot of that has to do with coaching.

And we weren't opening up the field, stretching it if you will, in those first 6 minutes, but they were short passes and nice runs by Riggs.

Then we quit.

[snapback]137049[/snapback]​

Fundamentals of coach you don't try a stretch the field by throwing into the teeth of the defense especailly when they are playing a 2 deep soft zone.

 

[Vol67]

Originally posted by volbrian@Sep 4, 2005 11:16 PM
Actually, I hoping we get after the QB a little better.  Granted, Hackney had a quick release.  But we could have made it easier on our secondary by making QBS throw with 3 or 4 Vols in his face.

[snapback]136619[/snapback]​

Watch the game and count Hackney was throwing the ball within 3 seconds, Very hard to get to him

A normal QB would have been sacked 7 or 8 times, such as Leak, Hackney is big and strong and was throwing the ball with 2 or 3 hanging on him 7 or 8 times.

 

[WA_Vol]

Why not spread the field with 4 or even 5 wide receivers?

Everyone in that stadium knew UAB didnt have the athletes to cover our best 4 or 5 wide receivesr one on one.

The played a 2 deep zone cause they knew they couldnt run with our best wide receivers, and we have 5 great athletes at wide receivers: Swain, Hannon, Meachem, B. Smith, Fayton, and even Lucas looks like a playmaker at that position.

 

[volmanjr]

why second guess a win, yes it was ugly , but we did win

 

[holdemvol]

There was no reason to spread the defense, they took away the deep ball with 2 deep, take away the drops and overthrows and this offense looked good. Why throw the ball 40 yards when we were moving it just fine with the short throws? The playcalling WAS effective....there were just too many cases of miscues by the PLAYERS. I just love how some "already knew what Sanders was going to call" and that is what the problem was. If we catch the ball and don't throw INT's we put up 35 easily. We can't hit wide open WR's 15 yards away and when we do they drop the ball so the solution is to air it out? That reasoning is ridiculous. I do not think we will not be as conservative in 2 weeks, there is just no reason to open things up when you can hit the short, easy routes and put up big numbers IF the PLAYERS execute, and that was the case with UAB. I have ranted enough today, and I was just as frustrated as anyone else with the offense, but I am starting to think some of you didn't even watch the game..just heard the score and it's off with RS's head!

 

[WA_Vol]

Sanders game plan is the same old stuff. We are gonna run power football, we are going to run the offset I.

That doesnt work well any more. Look what happened to Nebraska, you just can simply expect your o-line to push the other team down the field. You have to create mismatches spread the defense, and make them cover the whole field.

That game plan was bad. UAB didnt have the athletes to cover 5 wide receivers like what we have. Instead of creating a mismatch and explointing it, we go with the offset I and let 8 guys key in on our running back.

Instead of blowing out a team we should have, we got the majority of the pollsters in the country thinking we are not playing well and are overrated. Wouldnt it be better to make teams fear playing us? To make them think we are tough, instead of thinking we are an overrated team ready to fall?

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by Vol67@Sep 5, 2005 2:16 PM
Fundamentals of coach you don't try a stretch the field by throwing into the teeth of the defense especailly when they are playing a 2 deep soft zone.

[snapback]137117[/snapback]​

I wasn't suggesting that we should have tried to stretch the field, if that's what you took from my post.

I was very satisfied with our first two drives, even though one ended in a FG instead of a TD.

I'm just saying we came out sharp, got ahead and then we lost focus and quit executing.

The kids obviously thought it was going to be a breeze and they got lax.

I thought the offensive plan wa working quite well until our guys started dropping balls, missing asignments, and not finishing their tackles.

I know Hackney was tough to get down, but we didn't finish on at least a half dozen sacks.

The team obviously got sloppy after taking the 10 point lead.

Anyone blaming Randy is barking up a dead tree. Randy didn't drop all those balls.

 

[mikey]

Originally posted by T_man_J@Sep 5, 2005 9:55 AM
I do not think that play calling was the issue Saturday because poor execution at the start of the game did influence the kind of plays that Randy felt comfortable calling. Execution of the play is very important! There are many factors involved in successfully executing a play; some are unmanageable from a coach's perspective (like natural ability), but some factors are manageable. No one can deny the fact that we are always loaded with talent, so the real problem has to fall within the realm of control (from the coach’s perspective).

What factors are left that can be influenced by our coaches? There are many, many factors that fall into this area, but with this post I will discuss one very important factor: Preparation.

Our approach to Preparation is intuitionally flawed. This is not any one coach’s fault; it is just the way we have always done it. We recruit kids that have played one position in high school for, sometimes, three years, and what do we do when they get on campus? We move them to a different position! I understand that this usually happens on defense and the offensive line, but still we should try to respect what the high coaches have accomplished with these kids.

We try to do too much in too little time; this impacts Preparation. We have had the same tired old play book forever (you would have to perform carbon dating to know the exact age). There is no need to try to teach the entire play book to each player, we need better execution on fewer plays! IMHO, if we could flawlessly execute four offensive plays, we could beat anybody.

You can win many games with talent alone because the kids will find a way to prevail. To win the big games you must have the complete package.

[snapback]136916[/snapback]​

Which plays, specifically, would you eliminate? Name them and tell me why you would eliminate each one. Name me the 4 plays you would run and tell me why you'd run it and out of which formations you'd run it. And tell me how it is that we are doing such a terrible job when Phillip has won over 80% of his games since taking over.